74 replies to this topic

[DrxAbstract]

FrozenWaltDisney, on 06 February 2017 - 01:29 PM, said:

Also, I am not suggesting changing firepower or speed. A lot of lights either fight in close where it won't matter, OR they fight at range where they aren't going 100% max speed to aim.

The same goes for Mediums, Heavies and Assaults... So essentially you're saying it wouldn't make any difference, making it a minimal and otherwise pointless change.

FrozenWaltDisney, on 06 February 2017 - 01:29 PM, said:

Edit:
Also a light going 164kps shooting a erPPC, will have the same accuracy shooting an erPPC has a Heavy going 80kps.

This is technically true, however it ignores the very relevant point that increases in speed affect aim exponentially; Aiming at 164kph is more difficult than at 80kph... Which means Lights would be disproportionately affected to a greater negative extent regardless of the average respective engagement distance.

Any penalty tied to speed is going to have a proportionally greater effect as the Mechs dependence on said speed increases, which puts Lights at the top of the detractor scale and Assaults at the bottom.

[Albino Boo]

DrxAbstract, on 06 February 2017 - 09:27 PM, said:

The same goes for Mediums, Heavies and Assaults... So essentially you're saying it wouldn't make any difference, making it a minimal and otherwise pointless change.


This is technically true, however it ignores the very relevant point that increases in speed affect aim exponentially; Aiming at 164kph is more difficult than at 80kph... Which means Lights would be disproportionately affected to a greater negative extent regardless of the average respective engagement distance.

Any penalty tied to speed is going to have a proportionally greater effect as the Mechs dependence on said speed increases, which puts Lights at the top of the detractor scale and Assaults at the bottom.

Tank turrets have been gyro stabilised for 70 years and the system was perfected 40 years ago. Why can't gryo stabilised mechs a thousand years in the future do the same thing as 1970s tech?

[DrxAbstract]

Albino Boo, on 06 February 2017 - 09:34 PM, said:

Tank turrets have been gyro stabilised for 70 years and the system was perfected 40 years ago. Why can't gryo stabilised mechs a thousand years in the future do the same thing as 1970s tech?

Pretty sure you meant to address someone else with this question.

[Tristan Winter]

FupDup, on 06 February 2017 - 06:40 PM, said:

We already have it, actually. Machine Guns, SRMs, and LBX. That's what CoF is at its core.
Firing two PPCs under a CoF system would more or less be like firing an LB 2-X right now in terms of accuracy.

I am aware, but it's not a universal game mechanic.

Albino Boo, on 06 February 2017 - 09:34 PM, said:

Tank turrets have been gyro stabilised for 70 years and the system was perfected 40 years ago. Why can't gryo stabilised mechs a thousand years in the future do the same thing as 1970s tech?

Indeed.

[El Bandito]

Albino Boo, on 06 February 2017 - 09:34 PM, said:

Tank turrets have been gyro stabilised for 70 years and the system was perfected 40 years ago. Why can't gryo stabilised mechs a thousand years in the future do the same thing as 1970s tech?

Because Battletech was based on 80's tech and the mechs are shooting multiple weapons at once. Retro tech aspect is one of Mechwarrior's charms.

[Albino Boo]

El Bandito, on 06 February 2017 - 10:26 PM, said:

Because Battletech was based on 80's tech and the mechs are shooting multiple weapons at once. Retro tech aspect is one of Mechwarrior's charms.

The 1980s aegis naval sam defence system was designed to simultaneously engage over 100 targets not just using its own ships missiles but others ships sams that could be 20 miles away. Yet the year 3000 tech can't adjust to firing multiple weapons.

My point is don't try and make real world arguments about game mechanics because they don't stand up examination. The mech concept is fundamentally flawed because the ground pressure from having only one foot on the ground while moving would cause the mech to bog down in all but the hardest of ground. By all means argue from the point of view that changing something would make the game better but leave the real world out of it.

[NighthawK1337]

Albino Boo, on 06 February 2017 - 11:03 PM, said:

The 1980s aegis naval sam defence system was designed to simultaneously engage over 100 targets not just using its own ships missiles but others ships sams that could be 20 miles away. Yet the year 3000 tech can't adjust to firing multiple weapons.

My point is don't try and make real world arguments about game mechanics because they don't stand up examination. The mech concept is fundamentally flawed because the ground pressure from having only one foot on the ground while moving would cause the mech to bog down in all but the hardest of ground. By all means argue from the point of view that changing something would make the game better but leave the real world out of it.

60+ tons M1 abrams can do sand, dirt, gravel in somewhat thin tracks. I think mechs will be fine assuming about the same surface area per feet as 2 tracks. 3.66 m width * about .25 area are tracks * 9.75 m length * 2 tracks = 17.75 square meters. That's roughly half a small bedroom or a forklift. I'd say it's still doable.

Albino Boo, on 06 February 2017 - 09:34 PM, said:

Tank turrets have been gyro stabilised for 70 years....

I think you mean Torsion Bar Suspensions for the whole tank, servos for the turret. Mech Gyros are different from Tank Gyros, Gyros on tanks (I missed it the first time because I was thinking of reaction wheels) are just for a 3d reference sensors(gyroscopes) while Mech gyros are like reaction wheels in a spacecraft giving the mech a sense of balance. Early tanks just used bearings and stuff. Modern tanks use the servos and gyro sensors.

Your point still stands though. Mech Gyros(Reaction wheels) > Suspensions and Servos, so yeah mechs are supposed to be better.

Edited by NighthawK1337, 06 February 2017 - 11:46 PM.

[Albino Boo]

NighthawK1337, on 06 February 2017 - 11:17 PM, said:

60+ tons M1 abrams can do sand, dirt, gravel in somewhat thin tracks. I think mechs will be fine assuming about the same surface area per feet as 2 tracks. 3.66 m width * about .25 area are tracks * 9.75 m length * 2 tracks = 17.75 square meters. That's roughly half a small bedroom or a forklift.



I think you mean Torsion Bar Suspensions. Having Gyros on tanks is something I never heard of. Point still stands however. Gyros > Suspensions, so yeah mechs are supposed to be better.

Small but important point when a mech moves it lifts one foot off the ground. The ebj would have to a each foot being 17.75 square meters or 58 square feet.


Vertical gyro stabilizers were added were on most late war German, British and American tanks. They consisted of mechanical gimbal in the gun mount with a gyro attached to counteract vertical motion. These early tank stabilisers were developed from 1930s naval AA gun mounts. Horizontal stabilization was difficult becasue of that required moving the entire turret which is beyond the mechanical force available from a practical gyro. In the 1970s solid state electronics and advances in gyro technology from missile guidance development meant that it became possible to build a reliable gyro and servo system to offer all axis stabilisation

Edited by Albino Boo, 07 February 2017 - 12:19 AM.

[El Bandito]

Albino Boo, on 06 February 2017 - 11:03 PM, said:

My point is don't try and make real world arguments about game mechanics because they don't stand up examination. The mech concept is fundamentally flawed because the ground pressure from having only one foot on the ground while moving would cause the mech to bog down in all but the hardest of ground. By all means argue from the point of view that changing something would make the game better but leave the real world out of it.

Right, BT is a fiction written by people who are not scientists. Which is why I am pushing for more delayed convergence, instead of twitch shooting we have now, regardless of how modern tech compares.

I am trying to help make this game feel less arcadey. I have Overwatch to fill my arcedey shooty needs.

Edited by El Bandito, 07 February 2017 - 12:57 AM.

[Shiroi Tsuki]

FrozenWaltDisney, on 06 February 2017 - 02:21 PM, said:

Totally understand that. It's tough because most of the people that really love the IP are older non-fast-twitch players (most not all.) That is actually some of the attraction of the game, and you don't want to make it like all the other crappy FPS games that come up every 3 months.

I feel that anything with a game that has a good base should be extremely gradual. It's some of the concern I have with the new skill trees coming out. I hope that it isn't a play to cater to new players, since that normally alienates all the old ones if it happens to fast.

Other FPS have RNG when it comes to shooting - recoil and certain other games literally requires you to stop and wait to get the maximum accuracy possible (not guaranteed to land on point) which tbh is just plain bs. Although recoil can be easily predictable once you get used to it I honestly don't think it belongs in MWO. When you factor in torso twisting and certain weapons literally limited to close range, you've pretty much killed brawling, lights and a bunch of other roles, mechs and weapons. This essentially devolves to wot. While wot and MWO share similarities, they are ultimately two different games that play differently. If anything, MWO has a much steeper learning curve than wot

[DrxAbstract]

Albino Boo, on 06 February 2017 - 11:03 PM, said:

The 1980s aegis naval sam defence system was designed to simultaneously engage over 100 targets not just using its own ships missiles but others ships sams that could be 20 miles away. Yet the year 3000 tech can't adjust to firing multiple weapons.

My point is don't try and make real world arguments about game mechanics because they don't stand up examination. The mech concept is fundamentally flawed because the ground pressure from having only one foot on the ground while moving would cause the mech to bog down in all but the hardest of ground. By all means argue from the point of view that changing something would make the game better but leave the real world out of it.

If that was your point why were you quoting me?

[Albino Boo]

DrxAbstract, on 07 February 2017 - 01:45 AM, said:

If that was your point why were you quoting me?

I made an accidental quote at 3:30 am my time and you want argument. I'll give you one if you want but honestly I cant be bothered

El Bandito, on 07 February 2017 - 12:56 AM, said:

Right, BT is a fiction written by people who are not scientists. Which is why I am pushing for more delayed convergence, instead of twitch shooting we have now, regardless of how modern tech compares.

I am trying to help make this game feel less arcadey. I have Overwatch to fill my arcedey shooty needs.

In the context of the game, if you turn all weapons into sandpaper then the logical thing to do is run streaks or lrms. Speaking as someone has an 82% hit rate and 500k damage with streak 6s, they don't need buffing.

[Shiroi Tsuki]

It should be noted that logic is LosTech in the Battletech universe

[El Bandito]

Albino Boo, on 07 February 2017 - 02:21 AM, said:

In the context of the game, if you turn all weapons into sandpaper then the logical thing to do is run streaks or lrms. Speaking as someone has an 82% hit rate and 500k damage with streak 6s, they don't need buffing.

Oh, wow, 82% hit rate with SSRMs. I'm so impressed.

[Snazzy Dragon]

El Bandito, on 07 February 2017 - 04:58 AM, said:

Oh, wow, 82% hit rate with SSRMs. I'm so impressed.

Must be that OP triple AMS kit fox shooting the other 18% down

[Albino Boo]

El Bandito, on 07 February 2017 - 04:58 AM, said:

Oh, wow, 82% hit rate with SSRMs. I'm so impressed.

Says the LRM king

[El Bandito]

Albino Boo, on 07 February 2017 - 05:05 AM, said:

Says the LRM king

Why thank you. I do know a thing or two about LRMs, and back in 2013, I mostly ran with Streakcrow with SSRM2s. Hence my eyeroll at your hit %. It is not that huge of a deal. It is good, mind you, just not WOW.

More importantly, you said people will run SSRMs and LRMs more if delayed convergence is implemented, and I am personally fine with that. Those two weapons are already very situational in MWO. LRM requires teamwork, and SSRM requires the target to be smaller than 45 tons. Making them less situational is a bonus. PGI can easily balance them if they turn out to be unbearable, by fiddling with the damage numbers.

Edited by El Bandito, 07 February 2017 - 05:17 AM.

[Albino Boo]

El Bandito, on 07 February 2017 - 05:15 AM, said:

Why thank you. I do know a thing or two about LRMs, and back in 2013, I mostly ran with Streakcrow with SSRM2s. Hence my eyeroll at your hit %. It is not that huge of a deal. It is good, mind you, just not WOW.

More importantly, you said people will run SSRMs and LRMs more if delayed convergence is implemented, and I am personally fine with that. Those two weapons are already very situational in MWO. LRM requires teamwork, and SSRM requires the target to be smaller than 45 tons. Making them less situational is a bonus. PGI can easily balance them if they turn out to be unbearable, by fiddling with the damage numbers.

Lrms are very situational but streaks aren't. I mostly a run streak cat and I am quite happy to take on everything but the splatlas and srmdog since the uac nerf. I normally get 3 volleys off into their back before they even realise its not lrms. Its not one of those one good games thing but an above average performance in over 1300 drops.

[DrxAbstract]

Albino Boo, on 07 February 2017 - 02:21 AM, said:

I made an accidental quote at 3:30 am my time and you want argument. I'll give you one if you want but honestly I cant be bothered

Easy there fella. I was curious why I got quoted in an argumentative post that was unrelated to what I had said - Seemed like you had me pegged for someone else.

Albino Boo, on 07 February 2017 - 05:53 AM, said:

Lrms are very situational but streaks aren't. I mostly a run streak cat and I am quite happy to take on everything but the splatlas and srmdog since the uac nerf. I normally get 3 volleys off into their back before they even realise its not lrms. Its not one of those one good games thing but an above average performance in over 1300 drops.

Have to disagree with SSRMs not being situational as they depend heavily on the weight, geometry and loadout of your target in combination with extended exposure time, poor target switching capability, delayed firing sequence due to lock requirement and short range with the potential of being completely shut down by 2 ECM Mechs.

Not being able to inflict precise damage reliably is really the biggest drawback to them, which I'm ok with as far as Lights/Mediums are concerned. But, unless you're carrying the payload + armor of a Streak Dog, you're likely not going to walk away from your first encounter with a well-built Heavy/Assault, which are the two dominant weight classes.

[Albino Boo]

DrxAbstract, on 07 February 2017 - 09:49 AM, said:

Easy there fella. I was curious why I got quoted in an argumentative post that was unrelated to what I had said - Seemed like you had me pegged for someone else.



Have to disagree with SSRMs not being situational as they depend heavily on the weight, geometry and loadout of your target in combination with extended exposure time, poor target switching capability, delayed firing sequence due to lock requirement and short range with the potential of being completely shut down by 2 ECM Mechs.

Not being able to inflict precise damage reliably is really the biggest drawback to them, which I'm ok with as far as Lights/Mediums are concerned. But, unless you're carrying the payload + armor of a Streak Dog, you're likely not going to walk away from your first encounter with a well-built Heavy/Assault, which are the two dominant weight classes.

My 137 hours in a steakcat says otherwise. It takes 3 ecm mechs within 90m if you take a UAV. Wonder why the shadowcat got nerfed yet.